We answered yesterday's Rove teaser question by saying "time will tell."
Today, time clues us in, via the subscription only CQ Congress Daily:
House Judiciary Committee Democrats on Monday renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.
There's more, but really, what more do you need to know?
[I]n a letter sent Monday to Luskin, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said Luskin recently suggested to the committee staff that Rove appear "without a transcript or oath," but without any limit on the committee's right to seek sworn testimony later.
So that's the meat of it. And here's the snarling response from your tough guy Sternly Worded LetterTM writers:
"This is an important step forward," Conyers and Sanchez said of Luskin's proposal. "We are encouraged by this suggestion," they added.
And to complete the cycle, the media spin:
Their letter indicates a willingness by House Democrats to back off their past rejection of a White House offer last year to have Rove and other aides answer questions in private without an oath or transcript. Democrats had been insisting that the aides testify under oath in public.
Gorgeous! Well played, Dems! Lookin' sharp!
Kossacks, I think you need to begin preparing yourselves for the sad reality. There will be no accounting for this "administration." Not now, not in the 111th Congress, and not under President Obama.
Have a nice day.